[Ran Morrissett]

Over the years we at GolfClubAtlas have been fortunate to have some free thinkers share their research and knowledge with us. Their insights are pertinent to the underlying causes of both the game's joys as well as its problems. Personal favorites have included Tom MacWood and Melvyn Morrow who have written essays about course design in the so called “Dark Ages of Golf” (i.e. courses built from 1880 to 1900). TM and MM contend that history has slighted the contributions that these builders and their courses have made to present day architecture, especially as some of these courses have stood the test of time and are more fun to play than many modern courses.

We add today another free thinker and his research into the mix on GolfClubAtlas: Sam Ingwersen, AIA, artist and author from Columbus, OH who Chris Buie introduced me to over the summer. GolfClubAtlas is able to give Sam all the room he needs to express some pretty revolutionary ideas. We roll out his interview in three parts over the next several weeks. Today we post part one and here is its link:

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-samuel-ingwersen/

Sam cites concern over the loss of 10 million players in the past 15 years and asks the all-important question, why the decline? The National Golf Foundation in a recent report stated: 'Golf has been losing more players than it is gaining. The downward trend in participation is more alarming...two thirds of lapsed golfers weren’t having any fun.' 

Looking for answers, Sam turned toward history and found there has been one critical dissenter, a voice in the wilderness. F.W. Hawtree, British course designer and historian, recognized an emerging trend that would not bode well for the future of golf, namely the use of “landscape effect” in course design. Landscape effect as explained by Hawtree specifically refers to a golf course landscape component that is contrived to achieve an aesthetic look. Hawtree later observed: 'Golf course architecture has become an exercise in pure landscaping.'

Sam has further developed Hawtree’s observations of the trend in design, aesthetic looks, that became a part of the scenic movement started by Horace Hutchinson that emerged immediately after the Dark Ages. Sam’s thesis is, 'The beauty of golf course landscape effect is corrupting the game.'

Our interviews with Sam address the beauty of golf course landscapes that are illustrated in his paintings with narratives of the beauties and attractions of the game vs. another type of beauty, the innocent fatal beauty of landscape effect. Sam also introduces an innovative concept about the influence of landscape effect upon the qualities of games. He cites theories and research that have recently been developed by a few social scientists about what makes games (not electronic) popular, unpopular or corrupt in our society today.

He relates a concept that I have never heard of - 'state of flow' - that is a major influence upon enjoyment and fun in games, recovery, challenge/skill balance, immediate feedback and other components specific to golf that are impacted by landscape effect.

This is all very interesting and even provocative stuff to me and to my knowledge, not found anywhere else in literature. Personally, I have always favored a natural rather than a manicured landscape look. Two of my favorite courses are Westward Ho! and Wolf Point because there is little artifice or pretty landscape effect to assault the eye and therefore, a genuine sense of place shines through. Sam makes me think about 1) what is truly beautiful about the golf experience in nature as compared to man’s ideas of pretty and 2) what constitutes good golf. In my recent experiences, one design that came close to this ideal is The Loop in Michigan where there is minimal shaping and nature is embraced without superfluous add-ons. Man-made features are tamped down, in part, because the course is reversible, but it is refreshing all the same.

Sam’s points are all the more convincing because he uses his watercolor landscape paintings to convey his message in a most enjoyable, appealing manner. His visually soothing art work is in stark contrast to the brutal question he asks: Is the future of golf the continued aggrandizement of beautiful landscape effects? He hopes not because it represents a game that is less fun, more difficult, takes more time and expense to play and ultimately, drives people away.

Stay tuned for Part 2 with Sam Ingwersen in two weeks and please take time to mull all this over!

Best,

[Thomas Dai]

Not what I expected when I commenced reading!
Parts II and III awaited.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

I will have to read further to understand his points better and whether I agree.  Whenever an artist invokes "science" I tend to read skeptically.


There is no doubt that visual interest has a much greater impact on design today than 100 years ago, or even 25 years ago.  In one thread a year or two back I talked about this era of design as the Age of Photography because we are all so self-conscious in that respect.  And I have no doubt that my years of taking pictures of great golf courses, learning a bit from Brian Morgan about my own proclivities for composition, have impacted the look of the courses we build.


I also have strong feelings about certain other architects' work and their presentation style ... some who are among the most highly praised for their framing and aesthetic beauty are, to my eye, the most contrived looking of all.  [A favorite story:  years ago my wife and I toured a new course the day before its grand opening, and my wife noticed that someone had gone out and placed a single pine cone under each planted pine tree!]


However I have not agreed with the author's view in some of the examples cited.  I do agree with the critique that added features have made courses more difficult to play, but some of the suggestions made in this first part seem to promote added water in areas where it's not essential to golf and would only punish the bad shots of the weaker player.  Meanwhile, if you have a dramatic natural feature, I think it's crazy not to use it to its utmost, and find balance elsewhere.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm about to finish shooting (editing etc still to come) a low/micro budget feature film that I wrote and am directing. With very limited finances (and the limits to sets and wardrobes and lights/equipment etc that goes with that) I've found that the script/story has practically *told me* how it wants and needs to be filmed. There has been a blessed freedom in that; freedom rooted in limitations and constraints -- and also a kind of simplicity (if not purity) of intent that I think might communicate itself to the audience in an engaging way.
Time will tell if it will work or not, but it does suggest to me that when we *can* do more most of us invariably *do* do more; and that this in turn inevitably means we move further and further away from the essential story/script driving the film and more and more towards having all the conventions and excesses that the human ego is prey to driving it instead. I think this too communicates itself to the audience, and in *not* a truly engaging way.
Obviously, replace the word "script/story" with the word "site/land" when thinking about gca in the way Sam is thinking about it.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I'm about to finish shooting (editing etc still to come) a low/micro budget feature film that I wrote and am directing. With very limited finances (and the limits to sets and wardrobes and lights/equipment etc that goes with that) I've found that the script/story has practically *told me* how it wants and needs to be filmed. There has been a blessed freedom in that; freedom rooted in limitations and constraints -- and also a kind of simplicity (if not purity) of intent that I think might communicate itself to the audience in an engaging way.
Time will tell if it will work or not, but it does suggest to me that when we *can* do more most of us invariably *do* do more; and that this in turn inevitably means we move further and further away from the essential story/script driving the film and more and more towards having all the conventions and excesses that the human ego is prey to driving it instead. I think this too communicates itself to the audience, and in *not* a truly engaging way.
Obviously, replace the word "script/story" with the word "site/land" when thinking about gca in the way Sam is thinking about it.

Undoubtedly true.  The bigger the crew, the more likely they are to do stuff, whether it's necessary or not.


I'm looking at a project now that could be done on a similarly micro budget -- just mow out the fairways instead of taking them to sand to do finish work -- and pondering how that would affect the reception of the course.  I don't know if the client would be comfortable with the "risk" that it would look unfinished.  [I put "risk" in quotes because to me the more serious risk is that you open it all up and lots of sand blows away while you are trying to establish grass in a difficult climate.]

[Jason Topp]

I am looking forward to the remainder of the interview.  I am not quite certain I am following the concept yet but the juxtaposition of paintings and pictures is very interesting.

[Niall C]

I think what Sam is saying is that at times developers/architects have sacrificed the essence of the game just to make the course look beautiful, or at least I think that is what he is saying but not entirely sure as he seems to be dressing it up a bit. I'm pretty sure though that this statement is wrong (assuming I've correctly interpreted what he's saying);


"The subject of the power of beauty and the landscape effect and their influence upon qualities of games have never before been written about or published in the literature of golf."


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - I think (but am far from sure) that in that last quote Sam is referring not to how beauty and landscapes affect the golfer's experience, but to how they impact the playing of the game itself. He is suggesting, I think, that the effects of obviously and artificially created landforms sink down much deeper and more perniciously than we've heretofore imagined or discussed (except for perhaps someone like Max Behr, almost 100 years ago). He's suggesting, in short, that what is 'candy' to the eye is in fact 'poison' to the game, and to the playing of that game, and to the future of golf itself

[Sean_A]

Isn't the recent renaissance movement as much about creating eye candy without sacrificing quality classic style design as anything? It seems to me that this theory is a dollar late and a dime short.  The tough one dimensional golf with faux beauty has been under attack for nearly 20 years.  It has come to the point now where folks like Pietro pine for one dimensional golf as a viable alternative to the renaissance movement. The thing is, of course this is already the case and has been practically since Ross died and Maxwell finished Old Town.  There is more variety in design these days and that is because folks dared to look to the past to be different.  Now we have to find ways to make the renaissance movement more relevant by making these courses more sustainable. It is no accident that the renaissance movement is almost exclusively associated with high price golf. Some of the cost is fad pricing and associated archies being able to charge more money etc, but width, sand and attention to detail costs money to maintain.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  as a point of reference, I charged triple for Old Macdonald what I charged for Pacific Dunes a few years prior, and of course Old Mac has a lot more area of short grass to maintain.  Yet the price for both is the same - it's what people are willing to pay.

[Sean_A]

Sean:  as a point of reference, I charged triple for Old Macdonald what I charged for Pacific Dunes a few years prior, and of course Old Mac has a lot more area of short grass to maintain.  Yet the price for both is the same - it's what people are willing to pay.

Yep, fad pricing.  Some courses ride the fad forever and some don't with maintenance costs gradually eating away at profit margins. Still, the dirty little secret about the recent trend is cost to maintain...the cost compared to 80s style water and feed isn't great enough.  Its similar to cars.  As companies figured out how to get more mileage out of combustion engines they made the engines bigger/more powerful rather than building cars with better gas mileage.  Golf has figured out ways to maintain courses cheaper, but then designs in higher costs. 


Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

Mr. Ingwersen certainly makes the basic point which many of us agree with, namely, that an important part of the game of golf is the recovery shot and hazards which don't allow for a recovery shot, especially if done in excess or are contrived, make for a less enjoyable experience when playing the game. How many courses today are proud of the number of "signature" holes they can point to when describing the qualities of their course - my answer would be far too many.  They have added to the cost to build and maintain course as well as most often making the course more difficult and less enjoyable.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder what he thinks of fake rock?

[Jim Hoak]

Shouldn't this argument be directed in part--maybe a majority--toward course maintenance practices as well as architecture design? How many things are done for aesthetic reasons to the exclusion of good golf strategy?  The color of the turf might be a prime example, with the need for the visual of green fairways being without concern for playing needs.

[Niall C]

Peter
 
The point I was making is that this has been well documented before, by Behr and others in a US context and Simpson, Ambrose etc in a UK context. They all discussed at length beauty, strategy and nature in course design. Heck, even at a very basic level and before the Golden Age kicked in there was discussions in the contemporary golfing press about the proper construction of hazards and their effect in terms of the level of penalty extracted.
 
Nothing wrong with dusting down a topic and raising it again but to make such a statement and claiming to break new ground kind of undermines any case you’re trying to make, does it not ?
 
Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()